charge sheath vortex theory explains many fringe science phenomena

[tornadodrive]

I have been developing the theory of the charge sheath vortex for some years now. It is based on the simple observation that while stationary particles carrying the same charge will repel each other, once these particles start moving in parallel, they develop electromagnetic fields that cause these particles to attract rather than repel.
This can be deduced from very basic electrical theory, but it seems to have been overlooked by meteorologists, nuclear physicists and many cosmologists.

I have demonstrated this in a simple laboratory experiment to students - you can easily replicate this yourself with a van-de-graf generator and a petri dish

Scientists at CalTec have published a paper in which they use the same basic physics to explain the production of a plasma vortex.

This theory provides a very coherent explanation of the structure and forces of a tornado. It explains what ball lightning may be.
It demonstrates that there are far more powerful forces than gravity causing agggregation of dust in space - so negating many theories of the universe, dark matter and so on.

The theory also explains why confining a fusion plasma with external magnetic fields will always fail- rather a big booboo for those who have spent billions of dollars on fusion research.

But it also shows how a charge sheath vortex will confine itself, and possibly permit a fusion reactor without external confinement.

My website at www.peter-thomson.co.uk includes a simple step by step guide to the physics involved along with photographs.

Peter

 

[Darat]

Hi Peter

Welcome to the forum. I am not able to comment on your theories of "charge sheath vortex" however I did look at some of the other articles on your site.

I notice that you are a published author and therefore wondered if some sections (e.g. A Secret Human History ) are fictional pieces?

 

[Prester John]

Re Mars Life, the page the pictures are taken from contains this note

NOTE: THE BROWSE (JPEG) IMAGES RENDERED ON THIS WEB SITE ARE MEANT SOLELY TO FACILITATE THE SELECTION OF RAW MOC IMAGING PRODUCTS FOR DOWNLOAD AND USE BY THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. THE BROWSE AND JPEG IMAGES ARE NEITHER RADIOMETRICALLY NOR GEOMETRICALLY ACCURATE AND SHOULD NEVER BE USED FOR QUANTITATIVE OR INTERPRETATIVE PURPOSES.

http://ida.wr.usgs.gov/html/m08046/m0804688.html

Nuff said

 

[The Don]

I don't have the requisite details to hand, and my memory of physics is somewhat rusty, but I'd be interested to know:

- At the kinds of velocities experienced in a Tornado and with the strength of the Earth's magnetic fields, how does the attractive force compare to the electrostatic repulsive force ? How fast does the aor have to be moving in order to establish a sheath vortex ?

I think the example at the 3M site is an excellent one, I'd be interested to know how analogous a highly charged polymer sheet is to the air in its ability to store charge.

 

[Hamish]

I have been developing the theory of the charge sheath vortex for some years now. It is based on the simple observation that while stationary particles carrying the same charge will repel each other, once these particles start moving in parallel, they develop electromagnetic fields that cause these particles to attract rather than repel.
This can be deduced from very basic electrical theory, but it seems to have been overlooked by meteorologists, nuclear physicists and many cosmologists.

The theory also explains why confining a fusion plasma with external magnetic fields will always fail- rather a big booboo for those who have spent billions of dollars on fusion research.

I'll have to read further but your assertion that "once these particles start moving in parallel, they develop electromagnetic fields that cause these particles to attract rather than repel" is well known in plasma physics. Just off the top of my head I can point to several known instances, the Z-pinch being top of the list. Electron currents in laser-plasma interactions (my speciality) are observed to self-pinch under their own B-field.

I'm sceptical about your assertion that this is a reason that magnetic confinement fusion will be unsuccessful. The reasons why confinement time is currently limited to 1-minute is more to do with overheating of the confinement coils than anything else.

Let me read your web-site in depth and I'll comment further.

 

[Hamish]

Ok, a quick skim through of this page: Charge Sheath Vortex - Basics for a plasma turned up a number of inconsistencies.

Lets pick out some obvious ones. Not all of them destroy the argument but some definitely do.

But the moving charge particle also produces a magnetic field. Note that the direction of the magnetic field produced by the charge particle (arrows point to the south pole) is the opposite direction in relation to the circular path of the charged particle as in the diagram above. The charge particles are therefore cancelling the magnetic field which caused the charge particle to follow a circular path.

Cancelling? I don't think so. If this is true, how come charged particles moving in a magnetic field DO follow a circular path?

Next, from D:

Consider the case where a stream of positive particles forms a loop in the absence of an externally applied magnetic field

Why should I? How would this EVER happen? How do you bend a stream of positive particles into a loop without an external field?

And what about negative particles?

In any non-exotic (i.e. excluding antimatter) plasma, the most mobile species is the electrons. The ions don't typically respond on significant timescales and when they do they drag the electrons with them. You cannot maintain a beam of positive particles in a plasma, only a beam of electrons or a bean of quasi-neutral plasma. It's all to do with the mass difference.

If you want to discuss this further, feel free but I feel you've made some fundamental errors quite early on.

 

[The Don]

Hamish is doing a fine job of assessing Sheath Vortex. I thought I'd just rummage through a couple of the other articles.

I would discuss all of this on Peter Thomson's discussion forum, but there seems to be relatively low traffic there.

From the Ice Age one:

They cannot explain why ice has shaped the landscape of the Sahara, without postulating a snowball earth, with ice sheets extending from the poles to cover most of the globe, yet oddly enough, there are no signs of the ice sweeping south.

I was unaware that this was the case. I believe that the geological features present are due to a combination of wind and water erosion. Please point me to the glacial features

We even have fossils of tropical forest and dinosaurs dated to times when conventional theories of continental drift and ice ages place them within the arctic circle!

When the dinosaurs were around, the earth was much warmer, there weren't any polar ice caps. Ice ages don't come into it as far as dinosaurs go.

A cute littel amimation is here : http://www.scotese.com/pangeanim.htm

A little exploration of continental drift theory confirms that the continents do drift, but reveals that there is no satisfactory explanation of why they drift.

I think that it does, it's a matter of subduction and the formation of new material at fault lines.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/historical.html

The missing part of the equation of the ice ages and global warming is that very very occasionaly the whole crust of the earth can move as a unit. This shouldn't be unexpected when you remember that the crust is a thin semi-solid skin above a layer of molten magma. Small sections of the crust move on a regular basis during earthquakes, so that cannot be firmly glued in place by the layers beneath. What is more, earthquakes show us that such movement can be very rapid indeed.

Such movement on a micro-scale seems to cause massive disruption. On a macro-scale we'd expect to see geologilcal evidence of such enormous traumas

It doesn’t make sense to suggest that the icecaps were not centred on the poles.

Why not, the currents in the Earth's oceans have a profound effect on climate. The Gulf stream for example warms the whole of the Eastern Atlantic and has a the effect of keeping the pack ice at bay.

At the moment, Antarctica is a cold desert. There is very little movement of water vapour into the interior from the coast, yet in the past there must have been weather patterns that moved vast amounts of water to fall as snow on the ice caps.

Two things, one - parts of Antartica are down to bedrock, no no Ice there. Two - there has been a very long time for this Ice to accumulate

Because the axis of rotation has to be round the centre of mass, the change in the axis of rotation will be to move the North pole of rotation directly away from the region that has suddenly lost its mass.

The additional mass due to the polar caps is minuscule compared to the total mass of the Earth

 

[MRC_Hans]

tornadodrive:

I'm sorry, but I'm such a hard-core skeptic. When somebody says: "This can be deduced from very basic electrical theory, but it seems to have been overlooked by meteorologists, nuclear physicists and many cosmologists." ...And is publishing his Nobel Prize material on his private homepage only, my kook alarm goes off, loud and clear.

I'm not as patient as others here, so I won't bother with wading through your articles which are tightly packed with unreferenced claims. However, if you want to discuss your theories, one claim at the time, fine. Just be prepeared to back up your claims.

Hans

 

[iain]

Hi Peter,

I liked your thoughts on how things like moving stones, building pyramids and so on might have been done by ancient civilisations. Very interesting.

Welcome to the forum.

Iain.

 

[RussDill]

looks like he's trying to use it to explain UFOs to me:

http://www.peter-thomson.co.uk/anomalies/unidentified_flying_vehicles.html

 

[tornadodrive]

Hi Peter


I notice that you are a published author and therefore wondered if some sections (e.g. A Secret Human History ) are fictional pieces?

I would suggest this aspect is a hypothesis, rather than fiction. I think this hypothesis is worth considering.

Peter

 

[tornadodrive]

looks like he's trying to use it to explain UFOs to me:

http://www.peter-thomson.co.uk/anomalies/unidentified_flying_vehicles.html

My original intention was to persuade students to use scientific analysis to analyse hypotheses such as how the pyramids were built and UFOs.

However the charge sheath vortex theories produced a mechanism for a flying vehicle that matches very closely the descriptions of Vimana and flying saucers.- all based on very simple science. No magical thinking needed.

The science supports the theory that such vehicles have been built.

I put forward the hypothesis that someone in the past has developed such a vehicle.

Peter

 

[tornadodrive]

tornadodrive:

I'm sorry, but I'm such a hard-core skeptic. When somebody says: "This can be deduced from very basic electrical theory, but it seems to have been overlooked by meteorologists, nuclear physicists and many cosmologists." ..prepeared to back up your claims.

Hans

The following paper is based on an identical physics:
S. C. Hsu and P. M. Bellan
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125, USA, published in Experimental Identification of the Kink Instability as a Poloidal Flux Amplification Mechanism for Coaxial Gun Spheromak Formation
URL: http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v90/e215002
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.215002
PACS: 52.55.Ip, 52.30.Cv, 52.35.Py
and as reported on the following page:
http://www.aip.org/tip/INPHFA/vol-9/iss-5/p20.htm


You might like to read the papers and book published by Dr. Anthony Peratt
Associate Laboratory Directorate for Experimental and Simulation Physics
Los Alamos National Laboratory
MS-B259
Los Alamos, NM 87544 USA

l

 

[tornadodrive]

Ok, a quick skim through of this page: Charge Sheath Vortex - Basics for a plasma turned up a number of inconsistencies.

Lets pick out some obvious ones.
(cut)
Why should I? How would this EVER happen? How do you bend a stream of positive particles into a loop without an external field?

(cut)
If you want to discuss this further, feel free but I feel you've made some fundamental errors quite early on.

I use a van-de-Graf generator to produce a charge. I blow a stream of salt dust in air over the charged terminal. I can then make this stream of charged particles move in any configuration without any external magnetic field. This allows me to measure the magnetic field produced by the stream of particles in a loop ( absolutely tiny forces)

Peter

 

[tornadodrive]

Re Mars Life, the page the pictures are taken from contains this note




http://ida.wr.usgs.gov/html/m08046/m0804688.html

Nuff said

At the resolution of a web picture you would be hard put to see any difference between the jpeg image and the fully corrected image.
Anyone who wants to check further can download the raw data and process it themselves. What you will see is more detail, not less.
The image speak for themselves - I have picked out a selection that you might like to study.

Peter

 

[tornadodrive]

I don't have the requisite details to hand, and my memory of physics is somewhat rusty, but I'd be interested to know:

- At the kinds of velocities experienced in a Tornado and with the strength of the Earth's magnetic fields, how does the attractive force compare to the electrostatic repulsive force ? How fast does the aor have to be moving in order to establish a sheath vortex ?



I think the example at the 3M site is an excellent one, I'd be interested to know how analogous a highly charged polymer sheet is to the air in its ability to store charge.

The maths is very complex and so very difficult to predict what the conditions would be.
My original expectation was that it would need relatively high velocities and charge to produce the charge sheath, however practical experiments with salt dust showed streams of charged salt dust in the laboratory show features of a charge sheath.
The paper by S. C. Hsu and P. M. Bellan
provides figures on a very small scale.

Dr Peratt has provided me with figures for a charge sheath forming in dust devils, where the velocity and charge is much less than a tornado.

As to the polymer sheet. I have to be very careful when using thin polymer sheet of any kind when running experiments. I have been zapped 24 hours later by charge that has built up on screens surrounding experiments.

Peter

 

[Prester John]

At the resolution of a web picture you would be hard put to see any difference between the jpeg image and the fully corrected image.
Anyone who wants to check further can download the raw data and process it themselves. What you will see is more detail, not less.
The image speak for themselves - I have picked out a selection that you might like to study.

Peter

Read the disclaimer. why do you not download the decompression software, NASA view and then display the results?

You are using images that are expressly warned as :

ARE NEITHER RADIOMETRICALLY NOR GEOMETRICALLY ACCURATE AND SHOULD NEVER BE USED FOR QUANTITATIVE OR INTERPRETATIVE PURPOSES.

You do not mention the disclaimer on your site and do not link directly to the images so people can see the disclaimer. It looks like you are being deceptive.

I'd love to be proved wrong however.

 

[Hamish]

The maths is very complex and so very difficult to predict what the conditions would be.
My original expectation was that it would need relatively high velocities and charge to produce the charge sheath, however practical experiments with salt dust showed streams of charged salt dust in the laboratory show features of a charge sheath.
The paper by S. C. Hsu and P. M. Bellan
provides figures on a very small scale.

Dr Peratt has provided me with figures for a charge sheath forming in dust devils, where the velocity and charge is much less than a tornado.

As to the polymer sheet. I have to be very careful when using thin polymer sheet of any kind when running experiments. I have been zapped 24 hours later by charge that has built up on screens surrounding experiments.

Peter

Ok, I think I can see where you're coming from on this.

Technically, we're not talking about a plasma since there is no quasi-neutrality. You're talking about charged dust grains being swept around in a tornado. I suppose this might fall into the realm of dusty plasmas about which little is yet understood. Of course, the relationship between this and my field is now quite small, so please forgive me if it takes me a while to pick up ideas.

Since I will probably be able to understand the maths, do you have anything actually published that I could read over? If not, do you plan to publish anything?

I'm still not sure about the link to Hsu and Bellan's work. Their results are just examples of MHD kink instability in a plasma column with large torroidal and poloidal externally applied magnetic fields. Also the regimes studied therein are extremely different to those covered in your theory. Could you please elaborate on whate corroborating evidence this provides?

The theory also explains why confining a fusion plasma with external magnetic fields will always fail- rather a big booboo for those who have spent billions of dollars on fusion research.

But it also shows how a charge sheath vortex will confine itself, and possibly permit a fusion reactor without external confinement.

I'm far from being convinved about these things. Your charged sheath idea, while maybe plausible (although to what extent I'm not yet sure) in a dust storm, is not possible in a true, quasi-neutral plasma. As to the idea of creating a fusion reactor, I'm more than a little sceptical.

 

[Darat]

I would suggest this aspect is a hypothesis, rather than fiction. I think this hypothesis is worth considering.

Peter

Thanks for the answer.

 

[The Don]

The maths is very complex and so very difficult to predict what the conditions would be.

I think that it's imperative that someone does do the maths in order to take the hypothesis on a stage further. You say on your site that you are a university tutor. Perhaps you could persuade one of your Physicist or Mathematics final year students to take it on either as a project or as the basis of their Phd.


My original expectation was that it would need relatively high velocities and charge to produce the charge sheath, however practical experiments with salt dust showed streams of charged salt dust in the laboratory show features of a charge sheath.
The paper by S. C. Hsu and P. M. Bellan
provides figures on a very small scale.

That would have been my expectation. I was unable to access any more than the abstract of their work. I'm not sure (not being an expert), how analogous the Van der Graaf experiment would be. Is the potential difference within a tornado similar ?

Dr Peratt has provided me with figures for a charge sheath forming in dust devils, where the velocity and charge is much less than a tornado.

Could you please provide a link to this ?



I think that you may be doing yourself a disservice by having examples of how change sheaths could be used on tour website. This would immediately get you classified as a fringe scientist.

Talking about possible implementations of this work and using it to hypothesise about other ancient civilisations may me a little premature when the mathematics of the whole thing has not yet been worked through.